Jump to content

How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?


Highlander

Recommended Posts

Sir Vladimir of Romanov
33 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

There is no coherent plan. In fact, there is NO plan beyond winning a referendum and then forming some super-sized think tank to takes things from there. 

 

We are asked to take it on trust that we will be fine or we will ‘survive’. I’m sorry, that won’t do - ‘survive’ is not ‘prosper’ and there is a complete lack of detail on, well, everything. 

 

When pressed on a plan or lack thereof, many of those who are obsessively pro-independence tend to get quite abusive. A similar response is incoming when they are asked if there would be a point when they would say ‘no thanks, Independence would be too harmful.’

 

Such abuse or aggression is symptomatic of a raw nerve being touched and, deep down, they know it isn’t feasible without a very clear and costed plan. 

 

It is all so pointless as we are living through the dying days of the Nation State as the Economic State is on the rise.  

 

Exactly. All the things they demand from Westminster re brexit they are unable to provide themselves in relation to independence. 

 

The work of fiction they produced the last time is files in the humorous fiction section. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ri Alban

    267

  • frankblack

    213

  • Boris

    175

  • JamboX2

    134

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Mate you will never be convinced. It wouldn’t matter what was laid before you you’d rubbish it. 

There could never be a plan anyway,

much like brexit. Until it happens planning is pointless on the whole.

Pragmatism would take over. We would have to give and take as would rUK. 

 

I don’t think you can compare independence with Brexit. The latter is a complete mess with a new relationship being negotiated with an economic block we were previously a core member of.

 

Independence is much more clearly defined. It means a small part of a larger state breaking away and forming a new state of its own with independent Central Government Departments, Home & Foreign Office, Central Bank and Currency,  Armed Forces and foreign policy. Complete control of all Taxation and Public Spending. 

 

if you want to convince people in the middle ground to do that, there MUST be a coherent economic plan with figures the SNP are willing to stand behind. An acknowledgment of the likely challenges and a plan of how to deal with then would be good too. 

 

Most people aren’t flag waving patriots. They just want to be secure and prosperous in their jobs, put a roof over their heads and provide for their families.

 

Even as a No, I think Scotland would do fine longer term but be poorer to start with after a huge cull of public sector jobs. Its public sector is way too big and the economy would have to rebalance towards private sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

There is no coherent plan. In fact, there is NO plan beyond winning a referendum and then forming some super-sized think tank to takes things from there. 

 

We are asked to take it on trust that we will be fine or we will ‘survive’. I’m sorry, that won’t do - ‘survive’ is not ‘prosper’ and there is a complete lack of detail on, well, everything. 

 

When pressed on a plan or lack thereof, many of those who are obsessively pro-independence tend to get quite abusive. A similar response is incoming when they are asked if there would be a point when they would say ‘no thanks, Independence would be too harmful.’

 

Such abuse or aggression is symptomatic of a raw nerve being touched and, deep down, they know it isn’t feasible without a very clear and costed plan. 

 

It is all so pointless as we are living through the dying days of the Nation State as the Economic State is on the rise.  

Said one of the most offensive posters on here.       I could be wrong though, maybe i was unabl;e to read your posts or did not have my classroom assistant with me. That's because we are of insufficient intellect, you frequently tell us. Posters asking you to substantiate the claims you make are told they are unable to understand the source you took the info from and so there is no point in linking it.or arttemting to explain it to them.

   When challenged about the abusive nature of your posts by a poster on here (me) you reply with "What's the matter, don't you have a sense of humour"?

 

Many of the claims you have made on here are utterly bizarre e.g. the nation state is dying. Disputing these claims is not abuse it is an attempt to find the truth. You would not debate preferring to make personal attacks instead.

 

Have a look at the pro indy posters on here and elsewhere and compare them to the other side. Often nothing more than personal attacks reason being it is they who have lost most of the arguments, and they know it.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff the Mince

If the SNP  would commit to building a wall I'd join the party 

 

can see myself at a rally with a "Build the Wall" banner :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck
11 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

Said one of the most offensive posters on here.       I could be wrong though, maybe i was unabl;e to read your posts or did not have my classroom assistant with me. That's because we are of insufficient intellect, you frequently tell us. Posters asking you to substantiate the claims you make are told they are unable to understand the source you took the info from and so there is no point in linking it.or arttemting to explain it to them.

   When challenged about the abusive nature of your posts by a poster on here (me) you reply with "What's the matter, don't you have a sense of humour"?

 

Many of the claims you have made on here are utterly bizarre e.g. the nation state is dying. Disputing these claims is not abuse it is an attempt to find the truth. You would not debate preferring to make personal attacks instead.

 

Have a look at the pro indy posters on here and elsewhere and compare them to the other side. Often nothing more than personal attacks reason being it is they who have lost most of the arguments, and they know it.

 

 

 

 

I’m obliged for your response and for emphasising the points I was making. 

 

That notwithstanding and taking your points on board, you might wand to read ‘The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History’ by Philip Bobbit. ‘Bizarre’ is not an adjective that I have seen associated with his work. 

 

He teaches constitutional law at the University of Texas. He has served as Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on the Iran-Contra Affair, as well as Director of Intelligence and Senior Director for Strategic Planning at the National Security Council. He has written previous books on nuclear strategy, social choice and constitutional law.

 

 

 

7EB890C3-4CDB-4380-906D-C0EE9A4CE00F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
59 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

I don’t think you can compare independence with Brexit. The latter is a complete mess with a new relationship being negotiated with an economic block we were previously a core member of.

 

Independence is much more clearly defined. It means a small part of a larger state breaking away and forming a new state of its own with independent Central Government Departments, Home & Foreign Office, Central Bank and Currency,  Armed Forces and foreign policy. Complete control of all Taxation and Public Spending. 

 

if you want to convince people in the middle ground to do that, there MUST be a coherent economic plan with figures the SNP are willing to stand behind. An acknowledgment of the likely challenges and a plan of how to deal with then would be good too. 

 

Most people aren’t flag waving patriots. They just want to be secure and prosperous in their jobs, put a roof over their heads and provide for their families.

 

Even as a No, I think Scotland would do fine longer term but be poorer to start with after a huge cull of public sector jobs. Its public sector is way too big and the economy would have to rebalance towards private sector.

I don’t agree. You can lay out what you would like to happen but it would likely all go in the bin the day it actually did happen.

It can always be compared to brexit too. There’s not that much difference. 

There would need to be adjustment all over the place and maybe some people don’t fancy all that hassle. That’s fair enough just don’t trot out all the pish about how Scotland couldn’t do it, couldn’t survive etc etc etc. It’s bolloks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I don’t agree. You can lay out what you would like to happen but it would likely all go in the bin the day it actually did happen.

It can always be compared to brexit too. There’s not that much difference. 

There would need to be adjustment all over the place and maybe some people don’t fancy all that hassle. That’s fair enough just don’t trot out all the pish about how Scotland couldn’t do it, couldn’t survive etc etc etc. It’s bolloks. 

 

A lot of it would go in the bin but at least some kind of costed plan would be good. I don’t trot out said pish about how Scotland couldn’t do it. Because I personally think it could do it. It’s just a matter of whether voters think they should and whether they’re prepared to put up with a likely disruptive and painful transitional period.

 

If there had been a clearer plan on currency last time, I think the vote would have been closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
12 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

A lot of it would go in the bin but at least some kind of costed plan would be good. I don’t trot out said pish about how Scotland couldn’t do it. Because I personally think it could do it. It’s just a matter of whether voters think they should and whether they’re prepared to put up with a likely disruptive and painful transitional period.

 

If there had been a clearer plan on currency last time, I think the vote would have been closer.

There was a few plans for currency last time but for some insane reason they chose to stick to sterling tied to the BOE. 

Jim Sillars was right when he said it was madness on stilts. In what universe was that independence? 

I still think the last referendum was Scotland’s best chance of achieving indy and the SNP and Salmond in particular blew it. He allowed that issue to bog down the entire campaign. 

I think brexit will make it less likely tbh. 

Edited by jack D and coke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

There was a few plans for currency last time but for some insane reason they chose to stick to sterling tied to the BOE. 

Jim Sillars was right when he said it was madness on stilts. In what universe was that independence? 

I still think the last referendum was Scotland’s best chance of achieving indy and the SNP and Salmond in particular blew it. He allowed that issue to bog down the entire campaign. 

I think brexit will make it less likely tbh. 

 

Lots of quite independent countries use other countries' currency or peg their currency to other countries' currency. There is no conflict here at all. In fact, it's a great way to insulate yourself from malicious mass speculation meant to drive down the value of your currency. The open market trading of currency has so little actual impact on people in the West that it's a non-issue anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
5 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Lots of quite independent countries use other countries' currency or peg their currency to other countries' currency. There is no conflict here at all. In fact, it's a great way to insulate yourself from malicious mass speculation meant to drive down the value of your currency. The open market trading of currency has so little actual impact on people in the West that it's a non-issue anyway.

Pegging wasn’t what Salmond had in mind pegging is a good idea. Ireland done it with the punt which for all intents and purposes was a pound. Salmond wanted our entire monetary policy, our interest rates, our lender of last resort etc in what would be a foreign country.

It was insane. 

Edited by jack D and coke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jack D and coke said:

Pegging wasn’t what Salmond had in mind pegging is a good idea. Ireland done it with the punt which for all intents and purposes was a pound. Salmond wanted our entire monetary policy, our interest rates, our lender of last resort etc in what would be a foreign country.

It was insane. 

 

Gotcha. That being the case, I'd be forced to agree, especially with such a close neighbouring case working well for many decades until the link was broken in the late 70s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Geoff the Mince said:

If the SNP  would commit to building a wall I'd join the party 

 

can see myself at a rally with a "Build the Wall" banner :lol:

 

#RebuildHadrians

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love when people say that they'd love to rebuild Hadrian's Wall and cut Scotland off.

 

Hadrian's is entirely within England, running from Carlisle more or less straight east to Wallsend in Newcastle.

 

But if England want to cede a fair portion of land to Scotland in an indepedence settlement, that'd be welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gerry mccauley

I was veering towards leave but chose not to vote.....  Uncertain...

 

I would vote remain now.

 

The Independence referendum seed clearer.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Cade said:

I love when people say that they'd love to rebuild Hadrian's Wall and cut Scotland off.

 

Hadrian's is entirely within England, running from Carlisle more or less straight east to Wallsend in Newcastle.

 

But if England want to cede a fair portion of land to Scotland in an indepedence settlement, that'd be welcome.

GW, Tripper and Co would rebuild the Antonine wall. Partition is a very British ideal. 

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2018 at 11:12, jack D and coke said:

Pegging wasn’t what Salmond had in mind pegging is a good idea. Ireland done it with the punt which for all intents and purposes was a pound. Salmond wanted our entire monetary policy, our interest rates, our lender of last resort etc in what would be a foreign country.

It was insane. 

Pegging must be something different from what I've been told then, it didn't sound like a very good idea to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ri Alban said:

GW, Tripper and Co would rebuild the Antonine wall. Partition is a very British ideal. 

 

The irony is lost on you that Scotland may have to create a hard border with England if it wanted to join the EU post brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 21:36, Thunderstruck said:

 

I’m obliged for your response and for emphasising the points I was making. 

 

That notwithstanding and taking your points on board, you might wand to read ‘The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History’ by Philip Bobbit. ‘Bizarre’ is not an adjective that I have seen associated with his work. 

 

He teaches constitutional law at the University of Texas. He has served as Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on the Iran-Contra Affair, as well as Director of Intelligence and Senior Director for Strategic Planning at the National Security Council. He has written previous books on nuclear strategy, social choice and constitutional law.

 

 

 

7EB890C3-4CDB-4380-906D-C0EE9A4CE00F.jpeg

I’m afraid your sarcasm is wasted on me. Had I wished to be abusive,  I would have done so far more succinctly than stating that one of your statements was bizarre.  Why would I be abusive to somebody I don’t know, isn’t that your M.O.?

So, just to be clear, you made this statement “It is all so pointless as we are living through the dying days of the Nation State as the Economic State is on the rise.” and I called it bizarre. Imo there is little or no evidence to support the imminent death of the Nation state and even less obviously for its replacement by something called the Economic state, whatever that might be. I would totally stand by my statement but you may be able to reveal where the nation state is crumbling and the Economic State is taking over. I would be fascinated to read of this.

Unfortunately you made no attempt to explain your point other than to offer a synopsis of a book you are reading quoting the author’s C.V. I had hoped you might try to expand on your statement using your own words but it seems you are not up to the task.

Strangely you quoted my “bizarre” comment pertaining to your assertion about dying Nation states and applied it as though I had been describing somebody else i.e the author of the book you had been reading, Philip Bobbit. I had never heard of Bobbit but you cite him as proof that your statement is not bizarre.

I paid you the courtesy of actually taking some time to see what his book was about and to see how others regarded it. I did this because you said “‘Bizarre’ is not an adjective that I have seen associated with his work.” Maybe not but that does not mean that some consider it to be “eccentric and slightly unhinged. “

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n11/david-runciman/the-garden-the-park-and-the-meadow

This is one of the most sober and measured periodicals and I doubt they would use such terms without reason.

   The Observer calls the work ponderous, onerous and deeply depressing and states that the book “glorifies and ennobles war”     https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/jun/16/history.homer

Others talk of a new order where there are no social or environmental considerations. As far as I can understand you are saying that this is inevitable and that the process is already underway and that there is no point in trying to stop it.

 The book is 20 years old though and reviewers are laughing at Bobbit’s predictions and theories which it seems were formed around the time Mrs Thatcher was telling us “there is no such thing as society.”

You have some effrontery to offer the inevitability of this ludicrous and nihilistic vision of the future as a reason to reject independence.  I understand that such visions are attractive to some Tories but for most people these views are abhorrent and as a consequence unlikely to see the light of day in our country.

I hope you don’t think that I am running away from your arguments and being abusive and aggressive. I am disappointed by your argument. If you are going to quote a book and its synopsis I would hope that you would have understood the points the author was making as well as the terminology he uses. I still don’t know what you mean by the Economic State. I assume you meant the Market State but maybe I’m just not smart enough to understand.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I’d vote No at every single Indy ref until the day I died. Because absolutely no-one has provided a reason for me to vote Yes, other than because Westminster is ‘bad’. 

 

Scotland could survive on its on, much like I could survive on £12,000 a year. Surviving and prospering are two completely different things, however. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

No. I’d vote No at every single Indy ref until the day I died. Because absolutely no-one has provided a reason for me to vote Yes, other than because Westminster is ‘bad’. 

 

Scotland could survive on its on, much like I could survive on £12,000 a year. Surviving and prospering are two completely different things, however. 

 

 

 

So you don't think Scotland could prosper on its own?

 

Do you think Scotland is currentlyprospering and looks likely to prosper in the short term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boris said:

 

So you don't think Scotland could prosper on its own?

 

Do you think Scotland is currentlyprospering and looks likely to prosper in the short term?

 

Someone else said it earlier on in the thread. If Indy came around, we’d be left with either an SNP who’re doing a rather poor job or running the country, or another party will be left to pick up the pieces. 

 

My job is in the public sector and there are no assurances that my job would exist post-Indy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Someone else said it earlier on in the thread. If Indy came around, we’d be left with either an SNP who’re doing a rather poor job or running the country, or another party will be left to pick up the pieces. 

 

My job is in the public sector and there are no assurances that my job would exist post-Indy. 

 

 

Interesting that as a public sector worker you fear independence more than the current climate - that's not a having a go btw, merely an observation.

 

If, for example, the Tories got in at Holyrood, would they be less inclined to support Local Government, a bit like their counterparts down South?

 

Would Labour?

 

I guess that the upheaval of independence would make the public sector a prime candidate for "savings" (cuts!) given it is as bloated as we are told (I don'tthink that it is, but that's another debate perhaps).  That said, why would a government in a new country immediately make lots of people unemployed and then have to pay their benefits etc?  It doesn't make economic or political sense, to me at least.

 

Anyway, thanks for replying and giving your rationale.  Adds to the debate! :thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

No. I’d vote No at every single Indy ref until the day I died. Because absolutely no-one has provided a reason for me to vote Yes, other than because Westminster is ‘bad’. 

 

Scotland could survive on its on, much like I could survive on £12,000 a year. Surviving and prospering are two completely different things, however. 

 

 

Says the Northern Irishman. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Interesting that as a public sector worker you fear independence more than the current climate - that's not a having a go btw, merely an observation.

 

If, for example, the Tories got in at Holyrood, would they be less inclined to support Local Government, a bit like their counterparts down South?

 

Would Labour?

 

I guess that the upheaval of independence would make the public sector a prime candidate for "savings" (cuts!) given it is as bloated as we are told (I don'tthink that it is, but that's another debate perhaps).  That said, why would a government in a new country immediately make lots of people unemployed and then have to pay their benefits etc?  It doesn't make economic or political sense, to me at least.

 

Anyway, thanks for replying and giving your rationale.  Adds to the debate! :thumb:

 

No problem Boris. Happy to chat to someone who doesn’t resort to petty name calling or arguing for the sake of arguing. 

 

The current local government are already making cuts to local amenities, so not to worried on that front, it’s already happening. Would an independent Scotland have the financial power/desire to increase public spending? I can’t see it personally. 

 

Surely there would have to be some cuts to the public sector somewhere. It might not be through cutting jobs, but no one actually knows. Which is part of the problem. 

 

11 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Says the Northern Irishman. 

 

Says the man who went to school in Scotland, works in Scotland and pays tax in Scotland. 

 

Which is more than that bellend who runs Wings Over Scotland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

No problem Boris. Happy to chat to someone who doesn’t resort to petty name calling or arguing for the sake of arguing. 

 

The current local government are already making cuts to local amenities, so not to worried on that front, it’s already happening. Would an independent Scotland have the financial power/desire to increase public spending? I can’t see it personally. 

 

Surely there would have to be some cuts to the public sector somewhere. It might not be through cutting jobs, but no one actually knows. Which is part of the problem. 

 

 

Says the man who went to school in Scotland, works in Scotland and pays tax in Scotland. 

 

Which is more than that bellend who runs Wings Over Scotland. 

And? I know plenty of EU citizens who do the same but were banned from voting at the Euref. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

And? I know plenty of EU citizens who do the same but were banned from voting at the Euref. 

 

Which they shouldn’t have been. Two wrongs don’t make a right. 

 

Guaranteed you wouldn’t have said anything about my nationality if I’d been Pro-Indy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck
On 16/10/2018 at 00:32, coconut doug said:

I’m afraid your sarcasm is wasted on me. Had I wished to be abusive,  I would have done so far more succinctly than stating that one of your statements was bizarre.  Why would I be abusive to somebody I don’t know, isn’t that your M.O.?

So, just to be clear, you made this statement “It is all so pointless as we are living through the dying days of the Nation State as the Economic State is on the rise.” and I called it bizarre. Imo there is little or no evidence to support the imminent death of the Nation state and even less obviously for its replacement by something called the Economic state, whatever that might be. I would totally stand by my statement but you may be able to reveal where the nation state is crumbling and the Economic State is taking over. I would be fascinated to read of this.

Unfortunately you made no attempt to explain your point other than to offer a synopsis of a book you are reading quoting the author’s C.V. I had hoped you might try to expand on your statement using your own words but it seems you are not up to the task.

Strangely you quoted my “bizarre” comment pertaining to your assertion about dying Nation states and applied it as though I had been describing somebody else i.e the author of the book you had been reading, Philip Bobbit. I had never heard of Bobbit but you cite him as proof that your statement is not bizarre.

I paid you the courtesy of actually taking some time to see what his book was about and to see how others regarded it. I did this because you said “‘Bizarre’ is not an adjective that I have seen associated with his work.” Maybe not but that does not mean that some consider it to be “eccentric and slightly unhinged. “

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n11/david-runciman/the-garden-the-park-and-the-meadow

This is one of the most sober and measured periodicals and I doubt they would use such terms without reason.

   The Observer calls the work ponderous, onerous and deeply depressing and states that the book “glorifies and ennobles war”     https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/jun/16/history.homer

Others talk of a new order where there are no social or environmental considerations. As far as I can understand you are saying that this is inevitable and that the process is already underway and that there is no point in trying to stop it.

 The book is 20 years old though and reviewers are laughing at Bobbit’s predictions and theories which it seems were formed around the time Mrs Thatcher was telling us “there is no such thing as society.”

You have some effrontery to offer the inevitability of this ludicrous and nihilistic vision of the future as a reason to reject independence.  I understand that such visions are attractive to some Tories but for most people these views are abhorrent and as a consequence unlikely to see the light of day in our country.

I hope you don’t think that I am running away from your arguments and being abusive and aggressive. I am disappointed by your argument. If you are going to quote a book and its synopsis I would hope that you would have understood the points the author was making as well as the terminology he uses. I still don’t know what you mean by the Economic State. I assume you meant the Market State but maybe I’m just not smart enough to understand.

 

 

 

Back from leave and have now seen this peach. 

 

A point on your selection of reviews - it is a nice example of confirmation bias. You disagree with his thesis and so looked for negative reviews. Fine, but some balance might be informative; I can’t see the Guardian being entirely open to the views of a former nuclear strategist for a US Administration. 

 

On a Market/Economic State - you can’t think of an example, not a single example?

 

Bear in mind that these entities don’t simply pop up overnight, they evolve. For example, it may start with some collaboration on strategic industry, then grow that into a trading agreement (a ‘common market’ if you like), then remove of barriers to movement, then form ever closer governmental arrangements as individual states cede power to the centre, then establish a supreme court and a military. 

 

If that describes something that is ‘nihilistic’, I might be needing a new dictionary. 

 

I heard it said, in a discussion on the subject, that the World’s largest economy is an example of a highly developed market state. I’m not sure that is why the USA developed as it did but there is certainly merit in the argument. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Someone else said it earlier on in the thread. If Indy came around, we’d be left with either an SNP who’re doing a rather poor job or running the country, or another party will be left to pick up the pieces. 

 

My job is in the public sector and there are no assurances that my job would exist post-Indy. 

 

Give it a rest with the Daily Mail shite!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open and transparent ?

 

More than a dozen official briefing papers have been drawn up by the Scottish Government to prepare for a second independence referendum, it has emerged. But ministers are refusing to publish the documents, prompting opposition claims of a lack of "transparency and open government." 
Officials insist that they need "private space" to allow a full and rigorous debate within government about all the issues, before ministers reach a policy decision.

Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-government-draws-up-13-briefings-on-second-independence-referendum-1-4818129

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

Open and transparent ?

 

More than a dozen official briefing papers have been drawn up by the Scottish Government to prepare for a second independence referendum, it has emerged. But ministers are refusing to publish the documents, prompting opposition claims of a lack of "transparency and open government." 
Officials insist that they need "private space" to allow a full and rigorous debate within government about all the issues, before ministers reach a policy decision.

Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-government-draws-up-13-briefings-on-second-independence-referendum-1-4818129

 

Do many governments, or even the opposition parties themselves, publish documents when a policy is being drawn up?  Surely once a decision is made then that document will be available?

 

I'm not really sure what the problem is here (and that would go for any party formulating a policy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Do many governments, or even the opposition parties themselves, publish documents when a policy is being drawn up?  Surely once a decision is made then that document will be available?

 

I'm not really sure what the problem is here (and that would go for any party formulating a policy).

 

Sturgeon made a statement saying they’d be open and transparent when in government however only when it suits. Even when an FOI is raised they only reveal what they want. Typical of all political parties I’m sure. 

 

https://beta.gov.scot/publications/open-government-partnership-scottish-action-plan/pages/2/

Edited by Dannie Boy
Info evidence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Do many governments, or even the opposition parties themselves, publish documents when a policy is being drawn up?  Surely once a decision is made then that document will be available?

 

I'm not really sure what the problem is here (and that would go for any party formulating a policy).

 

Do you think the SNP are always open and transparent? 

 

I personally find it a bit odd that they don’t keep minutes or records of meetings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

I don’t read The Daily Mail. 

 

Sorry. 

Your posts read like you edit it. 

Edited by Pans Jambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

Open and transparent ?

 

More than a dozen official briefing papers have been drawn up by the Scottish Government to prepare for a second independence referendum, it has emerged. But ministers are refusing to publish the documents, prompting opposition claims of a lack of "transparency and open government." 
Officials insist that they need "private space" to allow a full and rigorous debate within government about all the issues, before ministers reach a policy decision.

Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-government-draws-up-13-briefings-on-second-independence-referendum-1-4818129

 

 

A party that simply can not be trusted with a democratic process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Do you think the SNP are always open and transparent? 

 

I personally find it a bit odd that they don’t keep minutes or records of meetings. 

 

 

And to a man (and lady/non binary etc) they vote in complete solidarity.  Staggeringly alarming.

 

I fear for a world that every member of a political party sees things the exact same.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

:blahblah:

 

Blah blah. Really?  A party that has complete contempt for any vote that is not a “Yes” one.  A party and cult followers who see the vote of a young impressionable progressive as more important than an elderly lady or gentleman (when they are and should be equal).  A party whose idea of democracy is to keep voting till you come round to our way of thinking.  The SNP will NEVER and I mean NEVER respect the democratic vote unless they win it.  A truly reprehensible party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Your posts read like you edit it. 

 

You are a prime example of why another Indy ref would wind up the same result. Because you don't try and engage with people on any level apart from insulting them. 

 

"You disagree with me, you must hate immigrants and people of colour"

 

It's all you're able to comprehend. Insulting people for having a different outlook, branding them the worst thing you can think of because that's your level. I've never read a copy of the Daily Mail in my life, unless I glanced at the sports pages once many years ago. But I know what people like you think it stands for. Feel free to try and find anything I've ever said that immigration is to blame for the ills of society. Or that Islam is a religion of violence. You won't, because you can't.

 

Perhaps if you and your ilk tried to do something other than berate, bully and harass people who believe in the Union, try and change their minds over the issue, you might have won in 2014. Or, at least, have a majority who're open to another referendum. But the majority of people in this country want nothing more to do with the lies, division, hatred and people like you. No doubt you'll call me a BritNat or something soon, because it's all your tiny mind can throw out there. I worry for people like you. Purely because you just spout absolute nonsense and poison at anyone who'll listen to you.

 

**** Nationalism. **** everyone who calls themselves a Nationalist. You're what's holding society back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

And to a man (and lady/non binary etc) they vote in complete solidarity.  Staggeringly alarming.

 

I fear for a world that every member of a political party sees things the exact same.

 

 

The worrying thing is that they don't all think and believe the same. They just have to tow the party line on every issue.

 

I dream of a world where people realise that Nationalism is a cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

The worrying thing is that they don't all think and believe the same. They just have to tow the party line on every issue.

 

I dream of a world where people realise that Nationalism is a cancer.

 

It really is.

 

 

All they want to do is control the way we think.  From a lifelong Tory (maybe not so much more nowadays) I can say with utmost certainty I would hate it if all Tory MPs thought the same or at least voted the same.  The concept defies every amazing thing about free thought.  Tories and labour have in house arguing due to differing opinions - this is healthy.  The SNP sit like robotic drones looking morally down on every single person outside their circle.  Nasty nasty nasty party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

You are a prime example of why another Indy ref would wind up the same result. Because you don't try and engage with people on any level apart from insulting them. 

 

"You disagree with me, you must hate immigrants and people of colour"

 

It's all you're able to comprehend. Insulting people for having a different outlook, branding them the worst thing you can think of because that's your level. I've never read a copy of the Daily Mail in my life, unless I glanced at the sports pages once many years ago. But I know what people like you think it stands for. Feel free to try and find anything I've ever said that immigration is to blame for the ills of society. Or that Islam is a religion of violence. You won't, because you can't.

 

Perhaps if you and your ilk tried to do something other than berate, bully and harass people who believe in the Union, try and change their minds over the issue, you might have won in 2014. Or, at least, have a majority who're open to another referendum. But the majority of people in this country want nothing more to do with the lies, division, hatred and people like you. No doubt you'll call me a BritNat or something soon, because it's all your tiny mind can throw out there. I worry for people like you. Purely because you just spout absolute nonsense and poison at anyone who'll listen to you.

 

**** Nationalism. **** everyone who calls themselves a Nationalist. You're what's holding society back.

Chill out dude. I was referring to your posts that read “too wee, too poor, too stupid”. Now I admit you didnt actually say that but reading between the lines you suggest that Scotland would go backwards in the event that A Yes vote won the day and thats right up there with the Murdoch readerships point of view. 

I am not suggesting you are racist or a anti-immigration at all. Clutching at straws there!

 

& by the way, I have never called myself a “Nationalist”. Is a British Unionist not a Nationalist anyway?

 

I think its you and your “ilk” thats holding Scotland back. Weve had scores of years where Labour and the Tories have ran Scotland badly and you and your “ilk” have had their day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Chill out dude. I was referring to your posts that read “too wee, too poor, too stupid”. Now I admit you didnt actually say that but reading between the lines you suggest that Scotland would go backwards in the event that A Yes vote won the day and thats right up there with the Murdoch readerships point of view. 

I am not suggesting you are racist or a anti-immigration at all. Clutching at straws there!

 

& by the way, I have never called myself a “Nationalist”. Is a British Unionist not a Nationalist anyway?

 

I think its you and your “ilk” thats holding Scotland back. Weve had scores of years where Labour and the Tories have ran Scotland badly and you and your “ilk” have had their day!

 

Whatever. All you have in your armoury is insults and denial.

 

People like you aren't worth my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Whatever. All you have in your armoury is insults and denial.

 

People like you aren't worth my time.

OK dude. Unyet your tirade above is full of insults and you still replied to my last post. 

You keep pigeon holing folk though if thats your thing. Nationalist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pans Jambo said:

OK dude. Unyet your tirade above is full of insults and you still replied to my last post. 

You keep pigeon holing folk though if thats your thing. Nationalist!

 

The difference is, my post came from actually having to deal with you and your nonsense. 

 

Trolling folk is against the rules mate. And a wee bit sad for a grown man to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

The worrying thing is that they don't all think and believe the same. They just have to tow the party line on every issue.

 

I dream of a world where people realise that Nationalism is a cancer.

I suspect they toe the party line to offer a unified opposition. Like any party they will agree and disagree on things. But, as has been used as dig against the SNP, they are focused on independence, unsurprisingly. 

 

Regards nationalism, I would agree with you, I'm not a Scottish nationalist, but I'd vote for independence. If we want to compare nationalism, the one exhibited currently by the tory party, particularly their brexiteer wing, is a completely different animal to that offered by the SNP, imo of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

The difference is, my post came from actually having to deal with you and your nonsense. 

 

Trolling folk is against the rules mate. And a wee bit sad for a grown man to boot.

Thing is im not trolling anyone. Scots who talk Scotland down give me the boak. You claim nobody has given you case for why Idependence would be better than what we have had for the last 50 years or now. You must have been living under a rock or in the West wing of your mansion n

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...